Posts
Comments
Comments were banned simply because thumbs down indicated that people did not want to read them. CENSORSHIP because no one had to read what I wrote. They knew exactly what they would get when they returned to the thread as I was consistent throughout.
Although the mod asked me not to post. Another senior member pm'd me and suggested that I post less often and try to add something to a discussion that was agreeable to other participants. SO I'd wait a few weeks and then added comments including information from mathematicians in support of my conclusions, thinking that this would be more acceptable. Since it was not, I can only conclude that people are just NOT open to the different pov that I have.
Vlad_nesov said:
"those enabling them by responding to them should stop.and (A specific suggestion I have is to establish a community norm of downvoting those participating in hopeless conversations, even if their contributions are high-quality.)
ADDED: What is sad, is that I wanted to talk about the OP, amplitudes and configurations, and everyone else keep wanting to talk about me, and have me read other sequences, etc. The false conclusions others have made about GPS just needed to be addressed as well as many other points, but I'll leave it alone. It is obvious no matter how much water flows under the bridge, I will be censored. Folks here are not interested in discussing the erroneous conclusions of the virtual half-silvered mirror experiment.
"What do you mean?"
I may have wrongly determined (because of your name) that you held the same view as other plasma cosmologists (the Electric Universe folks) that I have been talking with the last couple of weeks. Their view is that reality is at the single level, but 'observable reality' (the multi-level model) is the interface between the brain and reality. Consequently, all their discussions are about the interface (phenomena).
If so, then understanding the difference between an object and a concept might help one come up with ways to make reductionism kewl for the 'normal' folk. Math is an abstract and dynamic language that may be good for describing (predicting) phenomena like rainbows (concepts) but raindrops are static objects and better understood by illustration.
While the math concepts make the rainbow all the more beautiful and wonderful for you, this may not be the case for normal folks. I for one have a better "attitude" about so called knowledge when it makes sense. When I understand the objects involved, the phenomena is naturally more fascinating.
But as you suggested, I may be totally misunderstanding the Scourge of Perverse-mindedness.
BTW: The negative thumbs are not mine, but most likely your peers trying to tell you not to talk to me. If you doubt this check my history.... Take care!
So what's up with that? I went to a lot of work writing those posts.
Is this the sort of thing done with approval of the site owner?
They were well thot out and reasoned posts. The majority were very civil and violated no posted rules. In fact there aren't any posted rules that I am aware of. Just because my posts are annoying to some folks is not reason to delete them. NO one has to read anything.
I just don't understand the reasoning there, or here:
"A specific suggestion I have is to establish a community norm of downvoting those participating in hopeless conversations, even if their contributions are high-quality."
If the evolutionary process results in either convergence, divergence or extinction, and most often results in extinction, what reason(s) do I have to think that this 23rd emerging complex homo will not go the way of extinction also? Are we throwing all our hope towards super intelligence as our salvation?
Humans have a values hierarchy. Trouble is, most do not even know what it is (or, they are). IOW, for me honesty is one of the most important values to have. Also, sanctity of (and protection of) life is very high on the list. I would lie in a second to save my son's life. Some choice like that are no-brainers, however few people know all the values that they live by, let alone the hierarchy. Often humans only discover what these values are as they find themselves in various situations.
Just wondering... has anyone compiled a list of these values, morals, ethics... and applied them to various real-life situations to study the possible 'choices' an AI has and the potential outcomes with differing hierarchies?
ADDED: Sometime humans know the right thing but choose to do something else. Isn't that because of emotion? If so, what part does emotion play in superintelligence?
Not a yes, or no question D. (Like'''Have you stopped beating your wife). We don't test a hypothesis. It is an assumption or assumptions that we accept or not based upon it's rationality.
I have long complained about SI's narrow and obsessive focus on the "utility function" aspect of AI -- simply put, SI assumes that future superintelligent systems will be driven by certain classes of mechanism that are still only theoretical, and which are very likely to be superceded by other kinds of mechanism that have very different properties. Even worse, the "utility function" mechanism favored by SI is quite likely to be so unstable that it will never allow an AI to achieve any kind of human-level intelligence, never mind the kind of superintelligence that would be threatening.
I often observe very intelligent folks acting irrationally. I suspect superintelligent AI's might act superirrationally. Perhaps the focus should be on creating rational AI's first. Any superintelligent being would have to be first and foremost superrational, or we are in for a world of trouble. Actually, in my experience, rationality trumps intelligence every time.
If you are concerned about Intellectual Property rights, by all means have a confidentiality agreement signed b4 revealing any proprietary information. Any reasonable person would not have a problem signing such an agreement.
Expect some skepticism until a working prototype is available.
Good luck with your project!
@TheOtherDave:
Anotherblackhat said :
How can you be 100% confident that a look up table has zero consciousness when you don't even know for sure what consciousness is?
In response Monkeymind said :
Why not just define consciousness in a rational, unambiguous, non-contradictory way and then use it consistently throughout?
Not being100% confident what consciousness is, seemed to be a concern to anotherblackhat. Defining consciousness would have removed that concern.
No need to "read between the lines" as it was a straight forward question. I really didn't understand why the definition of consciousness wasn't laid out in advance of the thot experiment.
Defining terms allows one to communicate more effectively with others which is really important in any conversation but essential in presenting a hypothesis.
I was informed by Dlthomas that conceptspace is different than thingspace, so I think get the jest of it now.
However, my point was, and is, that the theorist's defs are crucial to the hypothesis and hypotheses don't care at all about goals, preferences, and values. Hypotheses simply illustrate the actors, define the terms in the script and set the stage for the first act. Now we can move on to the theory and hopefully form a conclusion.
No need to apologize, it is easy to misunderstand me, as I am not very articulate to begin with, and as usual, I don't understand what I know about it!
ADDED: And I still need to learn how to narrow the inferential gap!
Thanx! TheOtherDave:
The point of defining one's terms is to avoid confusion in the first place. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks consciousness means. Only the meaning as defined in the theorist's hypothesis is important at this stage of the scientific method.
"there's a good chance that I've lost sight of my goal"
That's something I don't understand (with epistemic rationality- "The art of choosing actions that steer the future toward outcomes ranked higher in your preferences ").
This is fine when a person is making personal choices on how to act, but when it comes to knowledge (and especially the scientific method)....It seems like ultimately one would be interested in increasing one's understanding regardless of an individual's goals, preferences or values.
Oh well, at least we aren't using Weber's affectual rationality involving feelings here.
If you don't know for sure what consciousness is, you define it as best you can, and proceed forward to see if your hypothesis is rational and that the theory is possible. If you define conscious as made of cells, then everyone knows right away a GLUT is not conscious (that is, if it is not made of cells) by YOUR def. and tells you, you are being irrational, please go back to the drawing board!
If my goal is to talk about something with a particular definition, then I prefer not to use an existing word to refer to it when that word doesn't refer unambiguously to the definition I have in mind. That just leads to confusing conversations. I'd rather just make up a new term to go with my new made-up definition and talk about that.
Well, casual conversation is not the same as using key terms (or words) in a scientific hypothesis, so that's a different subject, but new terms to define new ideas is fine if it's your hypothesis. In conversation, new definitions for old words would be confusing and defining old words in a new way could be confusing as well. That's not what I am saying.
Words can have multiple meanings and the dictionary gives the most popular usages. If we are appealing to the popular use then we still need to define the word. At any rate, whatever key terms that we use in our hypothesis must be precise, unambiguous, non circular, non-contradictory and used consistently throughout our presentation.
Conversely, if my goal is to use the word "consciousness" in a way that respects the existing usage of the term, coming up with an arbitrary definition that is unambiguous and non-contradictory but doesn't respect that existing usage won't quite accomplish that.
I'm saying it is important what EY meant by consciousness. If the person I quoted says we don't know what it is.....then that person doesn't know what the existing usage of the word is, or it is not well defined.
Anyways, why would you use a poor choice of a referent?
How can you be 100% confident that a look up table has zero consciousness when you don't even know for sure what consciousness is?
Why not just define consciousness in a rational, unambiguous, non-contradictory way and then use it consistently throughout. If we are talking thought experiments here, it is up to us to make assumption(s) in our hypothesis. I don't recall EY giving HIS definition of consciousness for his thought experiment.
However, if the GLUT behaves exactly like a human, and humans are conscious, then by definition the GLUT is conscious, whatever that means.
I'd like to hear it! Even if I am the brunt of the joke.
OK, thanx! but can you answer this? Are amplitude configurations the boundries in my analogy?
Thanx! Desrtopa.
I have to relate everything to what I already know, which is difficult because of practically zero math background. Can we do this w/o math? Ultimately we are leading up to higher dimensions, right?
Let's see if I have a clue visually:
The point is, I am trying to understand certain concepts and then put them into terms that I can relate to. Any similarity to actual theories or reality is purely coincidental.
I like to (mis)use the terms interference wave pattern and surface tension. When looking at a wooden table, we see where the molecules in the surface of the table meet with the molecules of air surrounding it. We see the 'interference wave pattern' not the air or the wood molecules. Now extend the analogy to dimensions. Where two dimensions intersect, another dimension (a surface tension) 'arises'. Each dimension itself, the surface tension between two others.
If we step through the transition of a dimensionless point into a three dimensional sphere we see that each dimension is 'contained' within the other. A point merges into other points, which come together to form a line, which join with other lines to form a plane, which may be the surface of a sphere.
The line is the surface tension between the point and the plane. The plane is the surface tension between the sphere and the line. The sphere is the surface tension between the plane and space-time. Now replace surface tension with the term boundary.
The three spatial directions (XYZ) and Time combine to form space-time (the fourth dimension). Up/down, left/right and forward/back and joins with time, which is movement through space, and along with other dimensions interfaces with both the macro scale of planets and galaxies and in the nowuseeit/nowudon't micro scale of Quantum incomprehensibleness.
Or as a friend told me:
"The real universe is "4-D expanding through an 11-D manifold"- and all of this makes sense when you understand: "It's a wrapped, temporal-volumetric expansion."-Cyberia
And as S. Hawking says:
"It seems we may live on a 3-brane--a four dimensional (three space + one time) surface that is the boundary of a five dimensional region, with the remaining three dimensions curled up very small. The state of the world on a brane encodes what is happening in the five dimensional region."
So can you relate the zero to the point to the curve, etc. to amplitudes and configurations for me?
Individual configurations don't have physics. Amplitude distributions have physics.
So the parts have no physical presence, but the whole does?
People are a lot more complicated than neurons, and it's not just people that are connected to the internet - there are many devices acting autonomously with varying levels of sophistication, and both the number of people and the number of internet connected devices are increasing.
FYI ...A recent study by Cysco (I think) says something like:
The internet is currently around 5 million terabytes with 75 million servers world wide. On average, one billion people use the internet per week. Internet use consumes enough information per hour to fill 7 million DVDs and growing, so an internet AI would need the capabilities of handling 966 exabytes of information by 2015.
An Exabyte is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes. Every word ever spoken by human beings could be stored in 5 exabytes.
Counting smart phones, robotic arms, cameras, GPS systems, clocks, home security systems, personal computers, satellites, cars, parking meters, ATMs, and everything else, there are more things connected to the internet than there are human beings on the planet. In a few years there will be over 50 billion with enough possible internet connections for 100 connections for each atom comprising the surface of the earth.
Came here doing research on QM and decided to try out some ideas. I learn to swim best by jumping right in over my head. My style usually doesn't win me many friends, but I recognize who they are pretty fast, and I learn what works and what doesn't.
Someone once called me jello with a temper....but I'm more like a toothless old dog, more bark than bite. The tough exterior has helped me in many circumstances.
On the first day as a new kid in high school, I walked up to the biggest, baddest senior there, with all his sheep gathered around him in the parking lot, and slapped him upside his head a hard as I could. Barely had an effect.! He could have crushed my little body with one hand, but instead he laughed so hard he nearly broke a rib. No one ever messed with me because he put the word out -hands off his little buddy, and of course I also gained the reputation of one crazy SOB!
Being retired, I have a lot of time on my hands, and I am interested in learning as much as I can before I become worm food. Right now my interest is GR, QM and AI, but I don't understand what I know about it!
I have a request, I just returned from the V.A. Hospital. My doctor says I need cataract surgery.
I am having a hard time making a decision on what to do. How would Bayesian probability theorem or decision theory help me make a decision based upon the following information? If you would use this in your decision making process, I am willing to use it in mine. I'm stumped and the doctor's have given bad advice many times over the years anyways.
There are inherent risks of infection, failure and loss of eyesight. I could have my right eye done right away (it's ripe) but it could possibly wait a year. However, at that time I will need to have cataract surgery in my left eye as well (couple of weeks apart). I prefer not to have both eyes done at the same time.
An injury in 06 caused a retinal detachment in my right eye. I may be having a retinal detachment in my left eye (I am having flashing lights similar to like b4 my right eye detached). It took a couple of months before the occlusion started last time (after the flashing lights began). An occlusion is like an eclipse of grey. If it makes it all the way accross you are blind. The doctor couldn't see signs of detachment, but cautions me to get there right away if the occlusion begins. Once occlusion starts, surgery needs to happen within 24-72hours. Success diminishes rapidly after 24 hours.
I am a high risk for retinal detachment because of severe myopia (near-sightedness). The right eye surgery was pneumatic retinoplasty, and so I have increased risk of detachment or other problems with cataract surgery.
I am writing a novel and want to finish it b4 the surgeries because of potentially months downtime, and in case of problems or permanent loss of eyesight in one or more of my eyes.
The Doctor says that it is my chioce to wait up to a year, but that I need to be watchful for signs of my left eye detaching, and I don't want my right cataract to get too hard, which increases risk of detachment and lowers success rate from cataract surgery.
Thanx!
He walked along the trail with all the other workers. They had toiled all day in the field, and now were heading back to join the rest just over the hill. His kind had lived and worked this land for over a thousand years. They are the hardest workers anyone has ever known. They were all tired and hungry, and it was quiet as they mindlessly shuffled down the trail. He had walked this way many times before, as they all had, without a single thought about the individual sacrifice each has made for the collective. This is the way it has always been. His large strong body moved forward with no thought about what tomorrow would bring. In fact, he didn’t think anything at all. None of them did.
Suddenly a bright white intensely hot beam of light shot out of the sky. His legs curled up underneath him as he collapsed, instantly dead. His insides were cooked and a single puff of smoke rose from his body with a pop. “Time to eat” Jimmy’s mother called from the back porch. Jimmy put his magnifying glass in his pocket and muttered under his breath, ”Stupid ants”. End of the Trail- Monkeymind
If intelligence is the ability to understand concepts, and a super-intelligent AI has a super ability to understand concepts, what would prevent it (as a tool) from answering questions in a way so as to influence the user and affect outcomes as though it were an agent?
If this is where we are at, then please advise me of it so I can take appropriate steps to avoid getting banned. I don't think I got an explicit statement of banning mode having been triggered, but I want to be sure since there is talk of the ban hammer going down.
I am not trying to be contrary, I just am, so it comes out that way. I truly think that what I have to offer has merit. Of course, if the community does not think so then it is within their power to down vote me into non-existence. That is fair, as I have no right to force my ideas on another person. It just seemed that this would be a place to share ideas. Perhaps not.
Are you asking me not to post anywhere in the community or just this thread?
Just tell me what you want, and I'll comply.
If you prefer not having disagreement, I'll just have to read and not participate. I can't simply agree because others think differently. Surely that is not what this is about.
BTW, I will go by whatever the house rules are. I am not here to be argumentative or disagreeable. I am here to learn. I do not argue for the sake of argument. I argue to become Less Wrong!
Originally I thot this was a physics forum. I came to this thread and got into the discussion w/o reading through the website. My bad! I have tapped out of the thread and will leave it alone. If you must censor me can you please delete all my posts, to be fair. It is hard enough to get people not to take things out of context as it is.
OK, I answered every single post addressed to me. I have done this since the beginning nearly one month ago. I have been honest, open and direct. I have tried to understand the community and I have done my best to respond with as much detail as needed to answer the issues raised.
No one has responded in kind. Therefore, Monday I will be back. If anyone needs clarification on anything that I have said, I will respond. Be prepared to answer my questions and address the issues I have raised by relating it directly to the OP (configurations & amplitudes). Otherwise I am done with this thread.
NOTE: the primary issue is defining the key terms related to the OP and dealing with the propagation of light as a particle/wave.
Well, I hope it has been a benefit to some. I'm just testing ideas out and wanting to learn and I have learned some things... so great!
Judging from the lack of counterarguments, accusations, dodging, strawmen, shifting of goal posts, and so forth, the ideas I am sharing strike at the heart of folks belief system.
Hi Cu, and thanx! This is what I have been saying all along.
Maybe, I misunderstand what you mean by intuitive, so perhaps you should give your definition. If we wish to make an appeal to popularity, we can use this Google definition (which I have posted b4):
Intuition: Using or based on what one feels to be true even without conscious reasoning; instinctive.
Based on that definition, you can see clearly see that I have not been saying that at all. I have repeatedly said that in a hypothesis one must rationally define their key terms. It seems like you and others here are guilty of basing your "beliefs" on what you feel to be "true" based upon what you have been told, and not by actually applying the scientific method.
It is a shame that I have to repeat myself so often because folks refuse to actually read what I am saying.
Yes, and a grain of rice has more genetic material than a human (almost double). So what?
With the simple understanding of emergent complexity, and without any automata or math at all, I can tell you (predict) what any plant or animal will look like on a mountain above 14k feet, or in a tundra. It is because there are only a few configurations for plants or animals in those conditions. We know this because we have observed it over and over again. So I can predict various life forms quite easily.
Although an electron microscope and a great deal of programming was needed at various stages, Craig Venter's Synthetic Genomics has synthesized an e-coli bacteria. Using four chemicals they created a synthetic bacterial chromosome and used yeast to assemble the gene sequences. They were copying nature, not actually creating anything from scratch. Lots and lots of trial and error was involved. Watch his press conference and let him tell you himself. Professor Cronin of Glascow University has created self replicating, evolving inorganic (metal-based) iCHELLS almost entirely by trial and error mixing.
I'm very excited about their accomplishments and have corresponded with both of them to let them know. I'm not knocking science or those respectable persons involved in the scientific process, I merely want to help make it better.
I am not for getting rid of theory and replacing it with trial and error. Try to actually read what I have written in toto instead of taking a few phrases out of context.
"To compare, LW contains a few discussions on many-worlds hypothesis versus collapse hypothesis, but those two are mathematically equivalent. In other case, an experiment could be done that decides between them, and someone would probably have done it decades ago."
Math can, and in the case of QM, must use infinities and 0-dimensional particles which can not exist in reality.
One can describe Hilbert's Hotel with infinite rooms, but construction of one is impossible. One can mathematically divide in half infinitely, but can not walk halfway to a wall forever. Math can do many things that reality can not.
Thanx, Bugmaster for splainin your thumbs. It is appreciated. The cascading thread format is not my choice, I much prefer SMF over the blog post style, but that's what we have to work with. You post and I respond, hence cascading posts.
My writing has been consistent throughout and very organized, which you would know had you taken the time to read them. It took all the posts up until today to get folks to discuss my primary concern (from post one) defining key terms, because it is other members trying to divert the subject matter which is the experiment is flawed because the key terms are not defined or are inconsistent.
The aggressive tone is partially my style but partially stems from others accusing me of being a troll, thumbing me without explanation and refusing to stay on topic. No one has offered a single challenge to my content.
I do not know what you are referring to when you say that I am telling you to do this or not do that, but would like to point out that I was told by one member that I just don't get it, and that I needed to read such and such if I was going to get any further discussion. I have complied with these demands and have read through dozens of EY's posts. In fact, you'll notice that I used quite a bit of his own words to illustrate some of the things that am trying to get across.
In stead of dealing with the issues that I have brought up, I get posts like the ones you are making dealing with style not content. It is your choice to read or not read what I am saying. I am not tied emotionally into the outcome at all, I came to learn about the half-silver mirror experiment and how it is related to SR, GR and QM. I originally thot this was a physics forum because of the topic. Now here you are telling me "You're not the boss of me" and at the same time telling me how to compose my posts, so that you will read them. How about some counterarguments instead?
The theme in my posts all along has been about defining key terms and proper scientific method. We can't have one without the other. Here is another perfect example of what I have been talking about, when I say proper scientific method.
In the Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements, when the scientists can't understand how their observations don't align with their theories, instead of taking a closer look at the assumptions of the theories, they naturally want to invent another particle! (In general, I am pointing to the problem with the Scientific Method. In particular, I am relating this to the back and forth of wave to particle to wave to particle and finally landing on particle/wave duality).
Because of seasonal variations, researchers think that solar flares may be interfering with the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes on earth (which are supposed to be constant).
"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be hanged."
If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
Remind you of anything? 0D photons and waves that travel don't make sense based upon the math and observations, so therefore let's invent the particle/wave paradox. Now, instead of questioning the assumptions of QM, researchers are assuming a new particle in order to make sense of something which does not make sense. QM says that nothing can affect the rate of decay of isotopes.
Thanx for your question!
No, not if we are talking like a couple of buds on the beach observing a surfer over a couple of beers (and he can shoot the curl all he wants). However when we are talking scientific hypothesis or theory, we have to be using unambiguous, non-contradictory, precisely defined terms that can be used consistently throughout a discussion. If Amplitudes and Configurations wants to use key terms, they need to be defined in this way. I provided definitions from wiki and Wolfram. If one reads through the scientific literature (and I previously listed all the major scientists in chronological order) ones sees that the term wave is used inconsistently. This is why each theorist must define his own key terms (the ones his hypothesis or theory depend upon).
Wave/particle paradox is irrational because it is contradictory and illogical. That alone should raise flags and eyebrows!
Oh and BTW the ocean wave you are referring to are water molecules moving up and down!
Geesh! You are all thumbs! (bugman)
So what is this WAVE?
"In physics, a wave is a disturbance or oscillation that travels through spacetime, accompanied by a transfer of energy. Wave motion transfers energy from one point to another, often with no permanent displacement of the particles of the medium—that is, with little or no associated mass transport. They consist, instead, of oscillations or vibrations around almost fixed locations. Waves are described by a wave equation which sets out how the disturbance proceeds over time. The mathematical form of this equation varies depending on the type of wave." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave
According to Wolfram: "noun- (physics) a movement up and down or back and forth" http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wave
A disturbance that travels? A movement up and down? Neither of these is a noun. Motion is not an object it is a phenomena, a disturbance through a medium. (This is one reason why space is now supposedly not just a vacumn but some"thing" a medium which can be warped, or rippled).
C = f (frequency) x lambda (wavelength)
The physicist has defined frequency in regards to time and wavelength in regards to length. The math keeps frequency constant and light moving at different speeds through different mediums like glass, air, space, etc (refraction). So light accelerates from 200,000 to 300,00 kilometers per second when it passes from water to air. What causes this? No one has an answer! Newton's third Law requires a force and Einstein (relativity) requires a curvature of space to deflect light. The solution offered is waves. Different mediums cause different resistance to the waves. So do these waves convert to particles when they reach a different medium?
Standing wave: Particles move up and down while wave moves through? Right! Imagine a rope tied to a tree on one end and you on the other. Move the rope up and down and watch the rope move in place as a motion "travels" along the length. Wait! the photon is supposed to be a traveling wave where the billiard balls move up and down as well as forward. What makes the billiard balls move up and down? Especially if they have no mass.
Wave motion transfers energy? Another important word! Energy is the ability to do work, that is, 1 J = 1 W s = 1 kg m^2/s^2. A motion transfers the ability to do work! A motion moves a motion. Right! Another misuse of the English language. Another example of not knowing the difference between objects and concepts, nouns and verbs!
Well then you missed the series of posts (the last few) that begin with:
"Well, I know that I said I would be back in a few months after learning more, but that will not be necessary. I have already learned enough to complete my analysis of Configurations and Amplitudes.
So today I wrote up a brief response based on what I currently understand about Double Slit and Half Silvered Mirror Experiments. Here it is in several posts.
What’s the matter?"
BTW, the post I was talking about was 13 sentences. I don't know which one you are referring to. Anyways, try to respond to content not style. See if you can exterminate any of my posts, Bugmaster. I welcome it, as I'm here to learn, not defend some sort of belief system.
Exactly! Wave is a verb, a dynamic concept implying motion and concepts can not move. ADDED: Adding 'A' in front of wave makes it appear it is a noun.
One does not need to be a physicist to understand that light is not 'a' wave.
There is a difference between an object and a concept. I keep saying this over and over, not because I think anyone is stupid. Because it can take months to understand (unlearn bad habbits). This is the MAIN prob with science in general and math and physics in particular.
BTW: dlthomas, I plussed you for helping me FINALLY get to the Thingy. Defining KEY TERMS!
Uhuh, thanx for the thumb down, mystery person. Don't worry about it... the physicists don't have counterarguments either!
Wave/particle duality is irrational because the language is grammatically incorrect and contradictory (as I have explained repeatedly).
The half silvered mirror experiment, and the double slit experiment are unscientific. The theory they are based upon uses abstract dynamic mathematical language to describe imaginary static objects confusing objects with concepts, instead of illustrating the objects in the hypothesis and explaining the phenomena in the theory as required by the scientific method.
The actual phenomena is simple diffraction caused by destructive wave interference and was properly understood hundreds of years ago.
The particle wave paradox is illogical, because it violates the three Laws of Logic.
Finally, the Lunar Laser Ranging stations in Texas and in New Mexico clearly show the impossibility of light leaving as a photon, traveling as a wave, and arriving as a photon. Therefore, I have shown without any counterargument that Amplitudes and Configurations is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Thanx for your comment!
Although it is long, as it broadly covers many blogs in a sequence on how to change your mind, I disagree about it being off topic.
However, let me remind you that it is others that have kept it "off topic" not I. Others requested that I read other blogs in order that I might see more clearly where the author was coming from and the main thrust of Less Wrong.
Yet, it is not entirely off topic, it is just that we are dealing with a very broad subject, Quantum Mechanics, and attempting to approach it from a rationalist pov. The specific topic is Amplitudes and Configurations. The foundational principles of the experiment are flawed. I have attempted to point this out. We can return to the actual experiment once we have agreed on the basic assumptions.
I gave you a thumbs up for this!